The World Cup pay gap

CHICAGO — This is a Great American Sports Town and here it was that I watched the Women’s World Cup, taking place 3,500 kilometers away in Vancouver, Canada. By kickoff Sunday night, hundreds of soccer fans had poured in to Lincoln Park to gather around a mammoth screen to watch the U.S. team face off against Japan.

Under a cinematic sunset, they banged drums, blew horns, waved American flags which were on hand from July 4 celebrations the night before. They hooted from the beer garden and leapt on top of picnic blankets during each one of the four American goals in the first half of the game, making for a scoreboard that felt at times more like a March Madness basketball game than professional soccer.

The Women’s World Cup has remained a feel-good event in spite of this tournament’s off-field distractions. Those included, but were not limited to: the domestic violence allegations against U.S. goalkeeper Hope Solo and how U.S. Soccer handled them; the peril (and humiliation) of competing on artificial turf; and the searing indictments from U.S. federal investigators against FIFA, soccer’s governing body.

But to some degree, those are all distractions from a far greater problem facing the Women’s World Cup: the players’ paychecks. And after a sizzling performance by the U.S. team, which trounced Japan 5-2, there is no better time than now to talk about money.

***

Pay for professional women’s soccer players is at best paltry and at worst outright shameful compared to those of their male counterparts. (The U.S. men’s team is currently ranked 27, compared with the world-champion women.) This year’s tournament featured a generation of American women who have not lived in a world without Title IX and did their jobs elegantly and professionally: They won the game, defeating a longtime rival in Japan; and as they did during the 2012 London Olympics, they won with high-caliber athleticism, class and sportswomanship along the way.

Yet the total payout for the Women’s World Cup this year will be $15 million, compared with the total for the men’s World Cup last year of $576 million, nearly 40 times as much. That also means that the Women’s World Cup payout is less than the reported $24 million to $35 million FIFA spent on its self-aggrandizing fiction film, United Passions.

The National Women’s Soccer League (yes, there is one and you should consider following it) has salary ranges reportedly from $6,000 to $30,000, which in some cases may put players below the poverty line in the cities in which the compete. Each National Women’s Soccer League team operates with a salary cap of around $200,000, which is about how much David Beckham makes frying an egg (let alone bending one). The MLS salary cap, by contrast, was $3.1 million in 2014. “In aggregate, first division women’s soccer players are making 98.6 percent less than professional soccer’s male cohort,” according to Fusion, making it one of the starkest gender pay divides in any workplace.

Money paid for broadcast rights has irreversibly changed all professional sports, as viewer-hungry networks are eager to pay top dollar for airtime that is less likely to be DVR’d and watched live. The deluge of cash has created controversy in college sports and an inevitable and forthcoming free agent free-for-all money-grab in the NBA. In soccer it has fueled allegations of greed and bribery within FIFA’s bunker and in football, it helped put additional pressure on NFL commissioner Roger Goodell over his handling of domestic violence in the NFL. (Goodell,by the way, earned a reported salary of $44 million, about three times the total Women’s World Cup payout.)

But with the exception of women’s tennis, broadcasters have not valued women’s sports equally, thus resulting in less money filtering down to players. The thinking among entertainment executives is often that ratings will be lackluster, interest will be low, advertisers won’t clamor to buy commercial time between the plays, even though the U.S. women’s team is delivering wins consistently. It leads to a fascinating chicken-egg problem: If networks did a better job of promoting women’s soccer, would more people watch it? Or, if more people watch women’s soccer, will the networks begin to pay more for the rights? Currently, it feels like a chicken-chicken problem, with the women’s team doing their job (winning games) and everyone else lagging badly in valuing their work. If the crowd in Chicago Sunday or chatter online was any indicator, people want to watch good athletic competition – male or female.

While several of the U.S. team stars have some off-field endorsements to help them buffer the dismal salaries of their teams, there’s evidence that those opportunities have not been evenly spread, either. Including endorsements, U.S. forward Sydney Leroux told ESPN’s Grantland that she made between $60,000 and $92,500 a year, including money earned from promoting brands like Nike and BodyArmor. The figures for other U.S. team stars, like Carli Lloyd, who was woman of the match in the final, or Abby Wambach, aren’t much better. Given the uptick in female sports fans and the undeniable power of women consumers, it’s surprising that marketers have yet to see the potential.

With the exception of women’s tennis — which only recently won equal prize money at all four Grand Slam tournaments — the gender disparity across other professional sports remains poor, as well. Total prize money for the PGA tour, more than $250 million, is more than five times that of the LPGA tour ($50 million), according to the Women’s Sports Foundation. In the WNBA, the minimum salary for 2013 was $37,950 and the team salary cap was $913,000. For NBA players during the same season, the minimum salary was $490,180 and the team salary cap was $58.7 million.

***

As the evening bloomed over the Chicago skyline, the score on the large projection screen read 5-2, a U.S. rout of Japan. The fans trickled out, their Uncle Sam hats tilted, children asleep on the shoulders of parents, college students stumbling beerily toward bus and L trains. It was the stuff of summertime sport spectator dreams and a victory in a sports town that for years has hungered for more of them.

But in spite of the pleasant vibe in the air along Lake Michigan, spilling out of sports bars nationwide or rippling throughout Twitter and Facebook, the fact remains that when the German men won the World Cup in Brazil last year, they won a $35 million prize.

The paycheck for the American women: $2 million.

Mary Pilon, formerly of The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, is the author of “The Monopolists.”

Authors:

Related stories on these topics:

FC

If FIFA or whoever could have two golden geese rather than one, they would. If they thought that promoting women’s sports would disproportionately increase their revenues, they would. People don’t watch women’s sports because women are worse athletes, and this decreased viewership (regardless of your anecdotal evidence) translates to lower compensation. Is this really Politico? Am I on some tumblr blog?

Posted on 7/6/15 | 5:09 PM CET

Dude

This article barely mentions revenues. I’d bet that most men’s sports earn far more money than women’s. The one exception probably being tennis.

Posted on 7/6/15 | 9:34 PM CET

James Wadsworth

Article is interesting, but would be helpful to know the comparative revenue for the mens and womens games. One source on the internet says mens tournament earns 71 times more than the womens tournament. Also, mens tournament has 32 teams, womens 24.

Is the author suggesting that the professional womens players get paid the same or close to men? Certainly a death blow to any womens league. Author needs to take a business class or two.

I actually enjoy the womens tournament more than the men, because you know that have a chance to win.

Posted on 7/6/15 | 10:20 PM CET

Bill Hogan

To those guys with their sexist heads in the sand: More Americans watched the Women’s World Cup championship than the Stanley Cup or the NBA Finals.

noonecares

How about telling how the last 2 women’s soccer leagues all went bankrupt when they paid the players more? This is an attempt to actually have a league that exists for a sport no one cares about until the World Cup finals.

Posted on 7/6/15 | 11:56 PM CET

To Bill Hogan

Maybe they’re just not ethnocentric, Bill. You’re comparing an international tournament run by an international body to national championships in the U.S.. You’re right though, that’s sexism and not just you believing the U.S. is at the center of the universe.

Posted on 7/6/15 | 11:58 PM CET

noonecares

To Bill Hogan, what else important in sports was on this weekend? It was a perfect storm of July 4th patriotism in sporting a WORLD CUP final game… People wanted to feel patriotic and watch American kick Japan’s butt. It could have been the world cup finals in nose picking.. people would of watched. Get back to me when a regular season women’s soccer game gets decent ratings.

Posted on 7/6/15 | 11:58 PM CET

Erik

The money ain’t the same because the money ain’t the same. The Men’s World Cup, as an event, makes a LOT more money (the cheapest tickets for Brazil cost more than the most expensive seats for the Women’s World Cup). Pay-out should be much closer than it is, for sure. Just don’t expect the Women’s event to pay the same until the profits are the same.

For reference: The 2015 WC had 1,353,506 in total attendance (with tickets starting at $20 per head). That’s a lot of people and a lot of money.

The Men’s 2014 WC drew 3,429,873 spectators (starting at $90 per head). That’s 2.5 times as many people paying more than four times as much money. The math dictates roughly 12 times as much revenue generated by the Men’s event compared to the Women’s.

Using that ratio as a template, the Women’s teams should be paid about double the current rate. However, paying equally just isn’t in the cards because it would mean paying the players millions more than the event brings in to begin with.

If we really want to talk about what’s “fair”, point a finger at the NFL’s tax shelter or their lack of drug testing.

At some point, pay scale is dictated by consumer demand, and Women’s soccer fans are only willing to pay so much.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 12:10 AM CET

Dilllon

It is somewhat disingenuous not mention the staggering differences in revenues generated by the Men’s and Women’s tournaments. The 2014 men’s tournament generated $1.4 billion in ad revenue compared to 2011 women’s tournament which generated $5.8 million dollars. Even if the 2015 generated 4 times as much revenue as the 2015, the U.S. women are still getting a larger piece of the pie revenue pie than the German men got.

Doug Smith

At the end of the day sports is about entertainment and quite frankly women’s sports in this case soccer isn’t cutting it. Yes they just won the women’s world cup but women’s international soccer has far less juggernauts as opposed to mens international play. Women are far less athletically gifted and make for boring sporting events. Thats not me being sexist just honest.

For example why would I watch the WNBA if I could watch faster, stronger and above the rim play on the NBA? PR and marketing EXPERTS know this and won’t bother investing in TV time that doesn’t maximize viewership. Women’s leagues failing financially shouldn’t upset other women it should motivate them to pursue careers where their skills will be well compensated. Its not sexist it’s capitalism.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 2:17 AM CET

Max Entropy

Men’s soccer brings in 80 times the revenue. That’s 80 times not 80% more.
So if the men are paid only 40 times as much then they are underpaid.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 4:43 AM CET

Will

Has more to do with revenue. It’s all about money. The more money you generate the more money you will be paid. Compare last year’s world cup to the women’s world cup of this year in terms of attendance, total viewership, advertising, ticket revenue, and other items that make up the money. You will have your answer why women are paid less. Women models get paid a lot more than men models. Maybe I should just scream sexism. Or I can actually do research and look at the numbers and determine that the women models bring in more revenue than men models and that is why they are a lot more. That is why men athletes get paid higher than female athletes except tennis. Tennis they are paid the same prize money because tennis athletes are about the same in terms of bringing revenue and viewership rating. This lesson is brought to you be juicy fruit. Don’t chew on the bullshit.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 6:18 AM CET

S

Of course there is the whole “women don’t generate as much revenue” rhetoric flying around here. The article is not saying, even it out right now, it’s saying – there are some institutional practices at play that are reinforcing the revenue and therefore wage gap. The women’s World Cup final had bigger viewership than both the NBA finals and the Stanley Cup finals. This translates to revenue. But only the final two games were even on anything but a special Fox sports channel that no one watches/gets. The point is, yes, it’s clear that women sports generate less revenue, but could there also be opportunity to allow for the success of American female athletes on the international stage to generate some additional viewership and increased revenue? Sure, but that is going to take some very closeminded people to back off the sexism in sports pedal and take a look at how they’re possibly perpetuating this lack of interest in women’s sports.
Additionally, if anyone wants to make some sort of insane claim that men’s soccer is somehow more popular than our women’s team -you’re kind of nuts. Our men’s team is AVERAGE at the best of times, and our women’s team has always churned out international stars like Mia Hamm, Wambach, Lilley, Akers, Chastain and more. Considering these women basically have to have two jobs to even play at a national level and are still showing up as world champions is a testament to their level of play.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 6:25 AM CET

Cristian

As most of the participants have already commented the main reason for this pay out gap is the difference in public interest and resulting revenues. With the exception of the US there is probably no country where women’s football generates more interest than men’s football. For example, in Germany, probably one of the traditional hotbed of women’s football in Europe, the Champions League final between local team Frankfurt and Paris St. Germain was only watched by 2 million people, whereas the men’s final (without German participation) between Barcelona and Juventus attracted over 10 million spectators.

There are different reasons for this gap but I guess that the most straight forward explanation is the difference in quality. With all due respect for women’s football but watching a world cup match is in technical and tactical terms like watching a a second or third division men’s team. It can be entertaining, but it cannot really stand a comparison to top quality football. And consequently it is usually the branch of football that most only people watch, if there is no other match on tv,

Posted on 7/7/15 | 12:12 PM CET

Kate

Not bad – the women’s team only earned 17 times LESS than the men’s team. We’re moving up in the world ladies.. ::snark::

Posted on 7/7/15 | 2:30 PM CET

Johnny Thompson

I’ve heard enough of this crap. Yes, there is absolutely a pay gap between men and women in the United States that needs to be fixed. However it is around 9% according to actual studies, not the BS 30% that is pushed by sensationalists, which is merely the difference between median wages between men and women, with no regard to job performed or hours worked.

One huge problem with the way people are going about the gender wage issue is articles like this. Feminists seem to be searching for any difference in pay between men and women, and then blaming it on sexism. First it was the difference in cost between female/male soaps. They charge women more for fragrant soaps because they will pay more, it’s as simple as that. Less men care about smelling good than women do. That’s not sexists. If you don’t like paying more for a certain soap, then don’t buy it.

There is one simple fact regarding women’s athletics wages – THEY AREN’T THE BEST IN THE WORLD. I’m sorry to break it to you, but the top 0.01% of men who become professional athletes are exceedingly more physically talented than the top 0.01% of women who become professional athletes, not to mention the fact that they are able to do it as their sole profession because it makes a hell of a lot more money. There is absolutely no comparison. It is basic human physiology. Nobody is going to pay significant money to watch people who either A) aren’t associated with whatever college they graduated from, or B) AREN’T THE BEST IN THE WORLD. If it weren’t for the fact that this was a United States nation team game and it is around the 4th of July, nobody would ever watch women’s soccer. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t happen. That’s why nobody has figured out how to make money off of it, nobody cares about women’s soccer when it isn’t the country playing. It’s the same reason nobody watches 90% of the sports that are in the Olympics, there are certain things we only care about if it is the national team playing. I personally love soccer and enjoyed watching the women’s team, but please spare us all the feminists propaganda and work on fixing the actual issue, spewing crap like this does nothing to support your cause. It simply makes people like me, who want to fix the gender wage gap, think you are either a sensationalist who has no problem using misleading facts or simply stupid.

On a side note, I never thought I’d see the day that somebody would be calling for athletes to make more money. What a joke.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 2:55 PM CET

J

First off the men’s world cup has a 60 year head start over the women’s game. That’s 60 years of endorsements, product placements and recognizable names to begin with. The women’s game in retrospect is a new comer to all this. To me that’s like a mid-level maager wanting to be paid like the CEO when they havn’t been in the company long enough. Viewership for the male games during a world cup is fever-pitch Where as for the females the viewership peakes during the finals.
I believe that those ladies should be paid fairly for their talents, but this has been done before with two previous U.S women’s soccer leagues that tanked. The viewership isn’t their for a regular women’s soccer season, it’s barely their for a Major League Soccer match. In due time the women of future World Cup teams will be paid handsomely, but this is something that takes time to build.
I give nothing but respect to those awesome women who were out there leaving it on the field for the finals, but sexism aside the men’s game is far more competitive and interesting to watch.
(I will say that I do prefer to watch the Ladies Football League over a regular season NFL game).

Posted on 7/7/15 | 3:07 PM CET

Matthew

The reality of women’s soccer is that the NWSL is the third crack at a pro league in North America after two priors have already gone under. The NWSL is only viable because the national soccer federations in Canada, the US and Mexico are all paying the top 6-7 players on each team, freeing the team up from having to cover those salaries, PLUS the national federations are covering all the front end office costs on behalf of the teams, as well. Anyone who thinks that the women are getting shafted needs a reality check on how heavily their game is getting subsidized to keep it alive at the pro level at the moment.

The Portland Thorn FC, Christine Sinclair’s club, gets 7-8K in the stands every game, with a peak of about 16K so far. To reach that average attendance level in England, you have to drop to the 10th division, where there are 291 teams playing in roughly 18 leagues. That’s in ONE NATION in Europe.

The only people who think that the women got shafted are the ignorant. The fact of women’s soccer is that no one freaking watches it. There’s no TV revenue, no merchandise revenue, no endorsement revenue, and there’s only enough from ticket sales to pay the bulk of the players around 10K a year.

You want more money, ladies? Check that discretionary spending and maybe think about dropping more cash on supporting women’s sports. As long as 98% of all the money spent on sports memorabilia, tickets, events, TV packages, etc. is coming from male wallets, it will continue to be a male game.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 3:46 PM CET

michael

We watch the women every 4 years play 4-6 games. Its easy to drum up patriotic excitement in america in a sport they expect to win in. I guarantee you i watch our women play every friendly, and match along with our men. But in all fairness if the level of competition between the men and woman were the same, Alex Morgan, Susic, Wambach, Lloyd would be signed to contracts in leagues like La Liga, and EPL. They arent, and im sorry but trying to act like the WWC is as big in scope and importance as the actual World Cup is a slap in the face of the women who play.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 4:41 PM CET

JR

That’s a pointless and illogical comparison. Of COURSE more Americans watched WWC than a U.S. League final. OBVIOUSLY, more Americans are going to watch a game where their national team could win the championship, than a game where only two cities are still in the tournament.

“To those guys with their sexist heads in the sand: More Americans watched the Women’s World Cup championship than the Stanley Cup or the NBA Finals.

Michael Hughes

This is justifiable because male soccer players possess infinitely more acting talent.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 5:28 PM CET

reality

In America, Fox took in about $17 million in ads from corporate sponsors for this year’s women’s matches, but ESPN took in $529 million in sponsorship revenue from 2014’s men’s tournament in Brazil. Women’s tournaments brought in only 3.2% of the revenue men’s tournaments brought in. Based on that, the women should be happy they’re getting 25% of the money the men received, even though they only brought in 3.2% of the revenue men did. This stuff is simple economics, not gender issues. The reality is, ALL people are more interested in men’s sports than women’s sports. Plain and simple.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 6:09 PM CET

Cameron

HOLY CRAP

Does this writer know anything about revenue?? What a stupid article. Cry me river Mary Pilon.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 6:28 PM CET

Bobby

The men weren’t paid more because they were men.

They were paid more because they GENERATED MORE REVENUE.

Do you not understand how advertising works?

Are Minor league baseball players paid the same as major leaguers? No.
Are Arena football players paid the same as those in the NFL? No.
Are soccer players in the MLS paid the same as those in Barclays Premier League? No.

Why? Because of sexism/racism/anyother-ism? NO!

Posted on 7/7/15 | 8:38 PM CET

To Bill Hogan

Are you for real with this?

“To those guys with their sexist heads in the sand: More Americans watched the Women’s World Cup championship than the Stanley Cup or the NBA Finals.”

Are you seriously not aware that both the NBA and NHL also have 82 game regular seasons too?

Posted on 7/7/15 | 8:44 PM CET

RK

This is a simple issue of return on investment. The free market will increase the pay of women athletes proportionately to what they generate for entertaining the masses.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 9:24 PM CET

Bur Davis

Not noted above, but of direct interest, http://www.wsj.com/articles/keys-to-a-usa-soccer-world-cup-win-1435857301 reported that “Fox and Fox Sports 1 have averaged 5.3 million viewers, 121% higher than the 2011 tournament average through the [Women’s World Cup] semifinals, and 33% higher than TNT’s average for its NBA playoff coverage. The win over Germany attracted 8.4 million viewers, the most ever for a women’s soccer match that wasn’t a final.”

Posted on 7/7/15 | 9:31 PM CET

ANSWER? COED GAMES

Dumbest thing I’ve read in a minute. Agreed this cat needs a business class or two. Do you pay two people the same amount of money for a job if one of them is 10% as good as the other one at it? If women were equal in athleticism and could put on the same show the men do, then there would be ONE league with coed participation. Hell, they could do that now, and it would just be the end of about 95% of women’s sports leagues. This stance on sports inequality is just ridiculous. Rant over.

Posted on 7/7/15 | 10:48 PM CET

Limey

Hmmm. Equal pay is a nice idea – and I bet the men at Wimbledon would like it too. But they get paid less – in real terms – than the women. They did before 2007, and now the gap is larger. Funny that not one feminist – or even those women who claim they want equality, rather than power – has brought this up. At least female footballers make an effort – i.e. they play for the same length of time (no extra breaks when it gets hot). But there are male players in the lower European leagues getting peanuts too, and any team of these would trounce the best women’s team.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 12:25 AM CET

Edward

Stop talking about ratings, ratings are an outlier when it comes to US games, everyone gathers for National Pride. This article should have brought up revenue between the two world cups. It was a $576 mil payout, but the mens have more teams in Fifa and more teams compete in the world cup.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 1:11 AM CET

Rick

The women actually get over 4% more of the generated revenue than the men (Over 13 compared to 9). The problem is that the women’s cup isn’t as popular as the men’s outside the U.S.. Big difference between $40 million and $4 billion (South Africa 2010) in revenue.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 1:11 AM CET

Brian

The fact that there is woman’s soccer is inherently showing favoritism to woman. If you want equality then there would be no men’s soccer and women’s soccer there would just be soccer. Gender would not matter. The problem with real equality is that it would really just be men’s soccer.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 1:46 AM CET

Sherrie Barnett

Love you guys ar

Posted on 7/8/15 | 1:46 AM CET

Chris Adams

The writer clearly shows the source of the problem – the mens world cup brought in 40x more revenue. They payout for winning the mens world cup was 17x bigger. Arguably the women are getting a larger share of the pie they created, it’s just that the pie is a lot smaller. “Fair” and “deserved” is not how pay is calculated or a biologist doing great work curing cancer would be paid more than some new college software grad working on a phone app that does some silly thing, which is not the case.

The good news is that the final drew a bigger TV audience than game 6 of the NBA finals. This is amazing progress over the last 20-30 years. It’s why there was a $2M purse. The problem is that womens soccer is attracting this audience in spurts once or twice per four years, so more growth is needed. But the world is changing rapidly for womens sports. The more they attract eyeballs the more they will get paid.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 2:51 AM CET

skyler

The fact that the U.S. won this tournament says a lot about the tournament itself. The rest of the world could care less about this game. It’s simple as that. Equality doesn’t mean that we should be forced to like woman’s sports. Get over it. The men’s world cup is the greatest sports event of all time watched by billions of people. END OF STORY.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 3:04 AM CET

Really

Really just Really which ones the bigger event by a fucking country mile. Is it also unfair that the champions leauge pays out more than the johnstowns paint no because one is a much bigger event than the other

Posted on 7/8/15 | 3:31 AM CET

james

This is a typical feminist rant where facts that are not favorable to your victim campaign are conveniently brushed aside. It’s not sexism, it’s economics. If you look at the payout vs. revenue taken in, the women were paid a higher percentage than the men. The fact is the women’s game doesn’t put people in the seats or command advertising revenue like the men. The men bring in greater revenue, but get a lower percentage of that revenue. See http://www.itsjoe.co/how-to-lose-popularity-contests-womens-world-cup-edition/

Posted on 7/8/15 | 3:38 AM CET

Poop magee

Not being sexist here but more viewers doesn’t mean they make more money. They still have to get ad deals that are paid for before the game and not many companies would pay for the actual amour of viewers they had because not one would have predicted it.
Also more predict viewers (typically found in men’s sports based on statistics) would result in more companies competing for add spots giving more revenues somewhat like the insanely high price per ad in the Super Bowl because they know almost all Americans will watch it.

Then also the bonus and pay are already set before the games meaning the amount of end viewer probably won’t result in higher pay until next World Cup where they will expect more viewers.

What I am saying here is don’t jump to conclusions about sexism until you see data that actually corresponds to the topic at hand which is the pay of women not the popularity of women’s sports

Posted on 7/8/15 | 6:19 AM CET

Etienne

Children make the world go round when little girls across the nation start standing up and demanding to watch their sports hero’s the revenues will follow. I’d guess more little boys ask for a football jersey come Christmas.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 8:12 AM CET

Dudet

You’re all misogynist for criticizing a women.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 8:19 AM CET

dexxie

Erik gives some of the detail about tickets sold and concludes that the women should be paid double what they are now. This however doesn’t include the viewing figures, once they are taken into account then the only conclusion is that Women footballers are either over paid already or Men are underpaid.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 3:19 PM CET

High School Glory

Lets say your high school football team just won the state championship. You are a fan so you celebrate which you have every right to do. But then you say ridiculous things like “My high school has won more championships than the Houston Texans. Its unfair that the texans make millions while the players at my hs make nothing. They make less winning a championship then the Texans make losing every year” Any logical person would point out the competetion levels and how much harder the nfl is than hs football but you continue to spew nonsense. This is what you people sound like. The gold medal winning USWNT in 2012 lost 8-2 to the Mens u17 a bunch of high school juniors and seniors who get paid almost nothing. If you really want to talk about equality the women were overpaid compared to their talent level.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 4:26 PM CET

Nicky J

To anyone arguing that there is any comparison whatsoever between the skill level/athleticism between men and women in this sport or any other, let me lay down some knowledge.

I saw a practice match between the WC Champion USWNT and the US U-17 Boy’s team. The boys won 8-2 without any trouble at all. I’m talking about a team of pubescent boys who CRUSHED the best women this country has to offer.

Serena Williams, the most dominant woman in the history of tennis, a physical and tactical juggernaut in the women’s game, boasted that she could beat any man ranked below 200. The 203rd ranked man, Karsten Braasch, took her up on it, and trounced her 6-1. He then proceeded to beat Venus, who had made the same boast, 6-2. During the sets it was plainly obvious that he was taking it extremely easy.

The game of golf has been enjoyed on a professional level by both men and women since the pro game’s earliest days. Every woman who has ever dared to make the transition to the PGA has been beaten to bits until finally being forced to return to the Ladies’ Tour. This, in a game of nuance and precision with very little weight given to strength or speed.

Point being, men are much, much more athletic, and thus more entertaining to watch in sport. The pay discrepancy is entirely logical. Full stop. End of discussion.

Posted on 7/8/15 | 4:46 PM CET

TC

I agree companies are missing out on the opportunity to put more cash in women’s programs. That said they make less comparatively because the interest isn’t nearly as high. Simple economics. People usually want to see the best and women’s sports will never be that compared to men..The link :look at each four year peak. During men’s competition there is about 10x more interest in the World Cup this last year, which is up, so that is promising. Nonetheless in prior years Womens WC was a blip.

Marcel

Men are not better than women, and vice versa. But, there are undisputable and structural physiological differences between men and women. In practically every athletics event, the men’s best time/distance is ‘better/faster’ than the women’s best time. If we removed the barrier of male/female separation in all events, there wouldn’t be a lot of women qualifying for the finals of any event. That’s not to do with sexism, but simply structural physiological differences kicking in.

Pay for professional sports should be based exclusively on the commercial value of the sport in question. Only commercial and popular interest should count, and not some bureaucrats idea of ‘equality’.

And where is the equality in women getting paid the same in tennis, despite doing less work? Men play best of 5, women play best of 3. In tennis, as in any other sport, pay should be determined based on commercial and popular interest (viewer ratings).

With men’s football, there are far more spectators in the stadiums worldwide, far more TV viewers and they all pay more to watch men’s football than those who watch women’s football. Certainly the case here in the Netherlands where most top league men’s games are sold out, whereas the women’s league has to give tickets away for free and still cannot fill the stadiums.

I’m sure the strongest women in the world could easily kick my butt, but they couldn’t kick the butts of the strongest men. I’m sure the fastest women in the world would easily outrun me, but they do not outrun the fastest men. Sorry ladies, but the structural physiological differences aren’t going away.

Posted on 7/9/15 | 1:44 PM CET

Jeff

“It leads to a fascinating chicken-egg problem: If networks did a better job of promoting women’s soccer, would more people watch it? Or, if more people watch women’s soccer, will the networks begin to pay more for the rights?”

The same could be said about any sport, which is simply a form of entertainment. If the networks did as good of job promoting the NHL, would it have the revenue of the NFL? If AA baseball were televised, would people watch it? Heck, lots of people watch obscure sports every four years at the Olympics, should those people get Tom Brady sized payouts in the name of equality for performing their sports, which would make much more money if they were treated equally?

Posted on 7/9/15 | 2:42 PM CET

Andrew

Professional athletes are in the realm of paid entertainment. Just like actresses, musicians, comedians, clowns, TV news personalities, ballerina dancers, magicians etc. No one has a right to earn money playing sports. If you’re good enough at getting people to give you their money so they can be entertained by you playing a sport, then you can earn a living this way. If not then you need to find a different profession where you can.

Posted on 7/9/15 | 9:30 PM CET

Tyler

Ya, and what’s your point? Hardly anyone watches this sport. There’s no ad revenue or big corporate sponsorships or sold out stadiums.

REALLY

LOL at pay gap like the two are comparable in the slightest, the skill level and viewership just isn’t there, no revenue = no pay, no one cares about the women’s game outside of the world cup, it’s the men’s clubs that shell out massive figures for the best players in the world, this article might become relevant when U19 men’s sides are no longer ravaging the top women’s national teams in the sport.

Posted on 7/10/15 | 6:13 PM CET

Anonymous

FIFA should really be nicer to the women. Alex Morgan’s friend from college got cancer from artificial turf. (I got some of this information from Alex’s autobiography called breakaway) say #WomensSoccerRules

Posted on 7/13/15 | 11:31 PM CET

MZ

If this were equal pay for equal work, could the argument be made that there is not equal work? Meaning, wouldn’t the women have to play the men? Begs the question of whether 1) the men actually have to work harder (the work is not equal because the competition is greater, 2) what about overall revenues – pay is typically tied to availability of funds, even high viewership is after the fact, that would be baked into the advertising for the next world cup cycle, now that we know the women will draw an audience, the payouts may go up a bit based on increases in ad revenue

Posted on 7/20/15 | 5:36 PM CET

Michael Coleman

Not only in sports, but at most of the places there is this gender gap. Whether it may be sports or the business, women and the men have this gap based on different and many issues. Why they don’t understand the droit social of an individual? If they would be knowing these rights then they don’t have the right to generate any kind of stupid gaps. Those who are creating these issues just show them the rights.http://www.legisocial.fr

Posted on 12/16/15 | 6:10 AM CET

John R. Carter, Sr.

All of this talk about the women’s soccer team not getting the same pay as the men’s soccer team missing a key ingredient that would help to make things a lot clearer. How much money is made throughout the year for each team? If the gate for the women’s soccer games isn’t as much as the gate for the men’s soccer games, do you still think that the owner of the women’s team can afford to pay the women the same as the men? The thing about equal pay only applies in those cases where both men and women are working together at the very same job in the very same company where one income is applied to all workers.